Landmark caselaw on liability of occupier for fire accident in Uphaar Cinema case

Breach of duty of care and causation of harm - Reasonable forseeability of harm - Effect of additional statutory
obligation where a common law duty of care exists - A breach of the statutory duty would be proof enough of negligence -
Held, failure to meet the prescribed statutory standard is treated as unreasonable conduct amounting to negligence,
because a reasonable man would not ignore precautions required by statute, and the defendant/accused cannot claim
that the harm was unforeseeable, because the legislature has already anticipated it, 

Sushil Ansal v. State, (2014) 6 SCC 173



Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 - Uphaar Cinema case - Criminal negligence causing death [S. 304-A IPC] or endangering
human life or safety causing hurt/grievous hurt [Ss. 337/338 IPC]/Negligence - Breach of duties and obligations under
common law and statutory provisions - Conviction and quantum of sentence warranted to various accused persons -
Structural, fire safety and seating arrangement deviations in Uphaar Cinema building in violation of rules, preventing
escape of patrons from the hall on outbreak of fire in DVB transformer (on ground floor) which spreading, and noxious
fumes from which entering Cinema and causing death of 59 and simple and grievous injuries to 100 others who were
trapped in balcony area of Cinema - Conviction and quantum of sentence warranted for offences under IPC and
Cinematograph Act, 1952 allegedly committed by (i) SA (A-1) and GA (A-2) who were the occupiers of Cinema as
management and sufficient control of Uphaar Cinema premises vested in them; (ii) officials of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service, who granted no-objection certificates for running the Cinema in gross
violation of rules and safety requirements; (iii) Managers of the Cinema, and gatekeeper of Cinema who fled without
unbolting the door of balcony; and (iv) DVB Inspectors and fitter of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) for negligence in repair of
the DVB transformer, which resulted in the fire that spread - High Court upheld the conviction and fine imposed by trial
court but reducing sentences of A-1 and A-2 occupiers and A-15 Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service; it also reduced
sentence awarded to A-8, the gatekeeper, A-9 Delhi Vidyut Board Inspector and A-11 Senior Fitter, DVB, and acquitted
the remaining convicted persons - Sustainability - Per curiam, conviction of A-1, A-2 and A-15 under Ss. 304-A, 337, 338
and 36 IPC and Cinematograph Act, upheld - Conviction of A-9 and A-11 altered to that under Ss. 337, 338 and 36 IPC
without interference with sentence awarded to A-9, A-11 and A-15 by High Court - A-8 had served out sentence imposed
by High Court - Acquittals by High Court also not disturbed - However, disagreeing on punishment to be imposed on A-1
and A-2, matter referred to larger Bench only on question of punishment of A-1 and A-2 - Per Thakur, J., reduction of
sentence of A-1 and A-2 to 1 yr's RI under S. 304-A IPC with fine by High Court, is proper - Interference by Supreme
Court with sentence is limited to cases where the sentence awarded is manifestly inadequate and where such reduced
punishment tantamounts to a failure of justice - Facts that: State did not urge that sentence awarded to A-1 and A-2 was
inadequate; prolonged trial that accused faced and the delay of more than sixteen years in the conclusion of
proceedings; that A-1 and A-2 did not have any criminal background and were both senior citizens, and whose company
had already been adjudged liable to pay compensation to the victims besides punitive damages awarded against A-1
and A-2, do not warrant interference with punishment awarded to them by High Court - Per G.S. Misra, J. (disagreeing
only on this issue), High Court indulged in misplaced sympathy by reducing sentence of A-1 and A-2 of two years
awarded by the trial court to one year in spite of its finding upholding the charge of gross criminal negligence under S.
304-A IPC and other allied sections, which is grossly inadequate considering the nature and gravity of offence committed
by A-1 and A-2 - Sentence of a period of one year must be substituted with a substantial fine of Rs 100 crores, to be paid
by SA (A-1) and GA (A-2) in equal measure to be used for the public cause in the memory of Uphaar victims for which
State of Delhi, as DVB is an instrumentality of the State, shall allot at least five acres of land on which a trauma centre for
accident victims along with a superspeciality department/ward for burn injuries shall be constructed - Seized premises of
Uphaar Cinema to be sold to realise said sum, if not paid by A-1 and A-2, 
Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's liability - Standard of care - Degree and nature of, expected from occupier - Concurrent/Additional
contractual or statutory duties of care - Effect of - Degree of care expected in respect of public places which have large
number of visitors, such as cinemas, malls and other such places - Principles laid down in detail - Degree of care
expected from occupier, held, depends upon the fact situation in which the duty of care arises, and upon whether the
person to whom the duty is owed is a contractual visitor, invitee, licensee or trespasser - To the common law duty of
care, at times is added a statutory duty which adds another dimension to the duty of care against injury to life and limb of
innocent parties who are working in the premises or who visit such premises - At common law there is an implied term in
the contract between the occupier and visitor that the occupier's premises shall be reasonably safe,
Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's liability - Duty of care of an occupier in respect of safety of visitors to a cinema hall - Standard of care -
Degree and nature of - Liability for criminal negligence under S. 304-A IPC - When arises - Duty to ensure safety of
visitors against all foreseeable dangers and harm - Additive effect of common law and statutory duties of care, explained

in detail - Duty of care on occupier, held, is a continuing obligation which the occupier owes towards every invitee,
contractual or otherwise every time an exhibition of the cinematograph takes place not only under the common law but
even under the statutory regime, and any neglect of the duty is actionable both as a civil and criminal wrong, depending
upon whether the negligence is simple or gross - In the case of gross negligence prosecution and damages may be
claimed simultaneously and not necessarily in the alternative - Nature of occupier's duty of care in a cinema hall,
explained and illustrated in detail - Further held, patrons are admitted to the cinema for a price, which makes them
contractual invitees or visitors qua whom the duty of care is even otherwise higher than others - The need for high
degree of care for the safety of the visitors to such public places offering entertainment is evident from the fact that
Parliament has enacted Cinematograph Act and Rules, which cast specific obligations upon the
owners/occupiers/licensees of public place of entertainment concerned - Nature and the extent of breach must therefore
be seen in the backdrop of the above duties and obligations that arise both under the common law and the statutory
provisions alike - Gross deviations from the sanctioned building plan of the cinema and statutory requirements by
occupiers in present case, enumerated - Occupiers of Uphaar Cinema i.e. appellants A-1 and A-2, held, showed scant
regard both for letter of law as also their duty under the common law to care for the safety of their patrons - They were
more concerned with making a little more money out of the few additional seats in cinema rather than maintaining the
required standards of safety in discharge of the common law duty but also under the provisions of the 1953 Rules -
Occupiers' negligence was so gross so as to make them culpable under S. 304-A IPC
Tort Law
Negligence
Concurrent liability - Standard of care when contractual relationship for consideration exists - Occupier's liability when
persons enter premises concerned for contractual consideration 

Breach of duty of care and causation of harm - Reasonable forseeability of harm - Effect of additional statutory
obligation where a common law duty of care exists - A breach of the statutory duty would be proof enough of negligence -
Held, failure to meet the prescribed statutory standard is treated as unreasonable conduct amounting to negligence,
because a reasonable man would not ignore precautions required by statute, and the defendant/accused cannot claim
that the harm was unforeseeable, because the legislature has already anticipated it, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A - Criminal negligence - Occupier's liability - Causation of harm - Reasonable foreseeability of harm - Violations
of and deviations from safety norms statutorily prescribed, indulged in over the years (in cinema hall) - Later, said
violations and deviations becoming causa causans of death of large number of patrons of cinema hall while they were
watching a film - Contention that incident which caused death was not reasonably foreseeable as no untoward incident
had occurred for many years prior to fatal occurrence, rejected - Accused occupiers A-1 and A-2 could not claim that
incident was not reasonably foreseeable since they had breached statutory safety norms with impunity, and had
persisted in refusing to redress the same - A reasonable man would not ignore precautions required by statute - Thus, A-
1 and A-2 cannot claim that the harm was unforeseeable, because the legislature has already anticipated it - Held, failure
to meet the prescribed statutory standard is treated as unreasonable conduct amounting to negligence, because a
reasonable man would not ignore precautions required by statute, and the defendant cannot claim that the harm was
unforeseeable because the legislature has already anticipated it, 
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A and 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence - Causation of harm - Principle of causa causans explained - Causa
causans distinguished from causa sine qua non - Act of the accused must be the causa causans i.e. proximate,
immediate or efficient cause of the death of the victim without the intervention of any other person's negligence to attract
liability under S. 304-A - Act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua
non for the death of the victim in a case under S. 304-A - Death of patrons from outbreak of fire in cinema hall - Causa

causans if fire or fact that patrons could not escape from balcony which had become full of poisonous gases caused by
the fire, which caused the deaths - Incident caused by fire that started from a transformer on ground floor, adjacent to
stilt parking lot, noxious smoke from which entering cinema, and due to obstructions and deviations from safety norms
created by occupiers/licensees of cinema hall, victims who were unable to move out of the smoke filled area died
because of asphyxiation not burn injuries - Held, failure to exit was the immediate cause of death, the causa causans -
Causa causans was not the fire in the transformer but the breaches committed by occupiers of the cinema theatre which
prevented or at least delayed rapid dispersal of the patrons thereby fatally affecting them because of poisonous gases in
the smoke filled atmosphere inside cinema - Causa causans was closure of the exit on right side, closure of right side
gangway, failure to provide required number of exits, failure to provide emergency alarm system and even emergency
lights or to keep exit signs illuminated and to provide help to the victims when needed most, all attributable to A-1 and A-
2, the occupiers of the cinema 
Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's liability - Breach of duty of care - Factors to be considered - Negligence if gross so as to amount to criminal
negligence: (i) punishable under S. 304-A IPC if it causes death, or, (ii) punishable under Ss. 337/338 IPC if it endangers
human life or personal safety causing hurt/grievous hurt - Breaches which were not the causa causans of death of
victims but did endanger their lives or personal safety causing hurt/grievous hurt - Effect of - In present case, breaches
of the fire safety and other norms (as set out in para 117) by appellant-accused occupiers, A-1 and A-2 of cinema hall,
were not the causa causans of death of 59 patrons so as to make A-1 and A-2 liable under S. 304-A IPC - Yet breaches
of the fire safety norms which led to the fire, noxious fumes from which ultimately killed the trapped patrons, show how
the occupiers had heightened the risk to safety of visitors and patrons which in turn required the occupiers to
proportionately raise the level of their vigil and the degree of care in regard to the safety of those visiting the cinema 
 But on the contrary, A-1 and A-2 committed further breaches of their duties
and safety norms as occupiers (as set out in para 119) which led to patrons getting trapped in balcony, which latter
breaches were the causa causans of death of patrons trapped in balcony (which were enough to make A-1 and A-2 liable
under S. 304-A IPC),
Constitution of India
Art. 136 - Interference in criminal matters - Concurrent findings of fact - Criminal appeal - Principles reiterated -
Jurisdiction to interfere under Art. 136 is extraordinary and the power vested is not exercised to upset concurrent findings
of fact recorded by the two courts below on a proper appreciation of evidence - Supreme Court's interference is
warranted only in rare and exceptional cases where the appreciation of evidence is wholly unsatisfactory or the
conclusions drawn are perverse causing miscarriage of justice, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Causing death by a rash or negligent act - Rash act and negligent act - Distinguished -
Liability for criminal negligence/negligence when attracted: three essential ingredients enumerated - Existence of duty of
care as fundamental prerequisite, for attracting liability for negligence/criminal negligence - The essence of negligence
whether arising from an act of commission or omission, held, lies in neglect of care towards a person to whom the
defendant or the accused, as the case may be, owes a duty of care to prevent damage or injury to the property or the
person of the victim - Existence of a duty of care is thus the first and most fundamental of ingredients in any civil or
criminal action brought on the basis of negligence; breach of such duty and the consequences flowing from the same
being the other two - To find whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendant/accused, the courts will have
to address the above three aspects to find a correct answer to the charge - Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises
from acting despite the consciousness of the consequences, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but
in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him,

Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence - Liability for - Nature and extent of care which ought to have been
exercised by accused person - Each case to be read in the context of its own facts,
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Extent of negligence required to attract liability for criminal negligence - Basis for
negligence in civil law different from criminal law - Negligence can constitute an offence punishable under S. 304-A IPC
only if it is proved to be gross, despite the fact that the word gross has not been used therein - What is gross would
depend upon the fact situation in each case and cannot, therefore, be defined with certitude, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence - Simultaneous criminal prosecution and action for damages in
private/civil law, held, permissible, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence - Standard of proof - It is different from the standard for negligence
under tort/civil law - Hence, court cannot make use of the findings recorded in the compensation/civil case or in summary
proceedings for payment of compensation to the victims or their families recorded under Art. 226 of Constitution, to
determine the question of gross negligence required to be proved for the offence under S. 304-A, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence - Occupier's liability - Occupier - Who is - Test for - Joint and several
liability of all occupiers - Occupier, held, is person who has sufficient control over the premises, and ownership is not a
condition precedent therefor - Cinema hall - Death of patrons while watching a film in cinema - Appellant-accused A-1
and A-2 if the occupiers of cinema concerned and thus if liable under S. 304-A for the death of the patrons in the cinema
criminal negligence of the occupiers being otherwise established-
Held, to determine who the occupier is what is important is whether the premises in question were sufficiently and not
exclusively under the control of defendant/accused, and for being in such control, ownership of the premises is not a
condition precedent - An occupier may be in control of the premises even when he does not own the same whether fully
or jointly with others - It is also not necessary that the control must be full and all-pervasive - It follows that if there are
more than one occupiers of a building, and each one neglects the duty of care, the liability whether civil or criminal will fall
jointly and severally on all of them - In a given case whether a person is an occupier is a pure question of fact - Cinema
owned by a company (ATC) from which A-1 and A-2 had retired as Directors/MD but still exercising financial authority
and control over the day-to-day affairs of the Cinema concerned, continuing even up to the date of the incident - Held, A-
1 and A-2, in the facts of the present case, were occupiers of the cinema complex and were in full control over the affairs
of the company which owned the Cinema, in which capacity they owed a duty of care for the safety of patrons
visiting/coming to the premises - Clarified that in present case A-1 and A-2 were liable directly as occupiers of Cinema
premises and not vicariously as officers of company which was the owner of the premises 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A - Criminal negligence - Direct liability as occupiers distinguished from vicarious liability as officers of company
which was the owner of the premises concerned - Appellants (A-1 and A-2) were prosecuted in their capacity as

occupiers of cinema hall who grossly neglected duty of care for safety of the patrons - However, A-1 and A-2 contended
that a company (of which they had been Directors/MD) was owner of the cinema, and they could not be vicariously held
guilty of criminal negligence as officers of the company, as in the absence of any provisions in IPC rendering the officers
of the company vicariously liable for prosecution for the offences committed by the company under Ss. 304-A, 337, 338
and 36 IPC, there was no question of the appellant Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2) being held guilty, that too for an offence
committed long after they had ceased to hold any position in the company - This contention, held, is rejected - Appellants
have not been prosecuted as officers of a company accused of committing an offence, nor is it the case of the
prosecution that the appellants are vicariously liable as in the case of those falling under S. 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act - The prosecution case on the other hand is that it is in their capacity as occupiers, that the appellants
the Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2) had a duty of care for the safety of the patrons which duty they grossly neglected -
Entire substratum of the case is different from the assumption on which the above contention of A-1 and A-2 is built
Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's liability - Whether derogable or delegable - Cinema - Safety in - Licence for cinematograph exhibition -
Occupiers whether entitled to assume that Licensing Authority had duly discharged its duty and satisfied itself about the
premises being adequately safe - Independent obligation upon occupier of premises to maintain compliance with safety
norms, irrespective of assessment of the public authorities - Held, R. 10(1) of the DCR, 1953 unambiguously casts
responsibility for maintaining such compliance and safety upon the occupier - Principle that an occupier is entitled to
assume that others have done their duty is applicable, provided that experience has not revealed to occupier that the
negligence of others is common, nor did he at any time have reason to believe that his premises were unsafe - It is
difficult for the occupiers in the present case to argue that they did not have reason to believe that the premises were
unsafe, given the occurrence of a similar fire in 1989 (present incident occurring in 1997) and also as on a number of
occasions defects in their premises had been pointed out to them, 
Tort Law
Negligence
Occupier's liability - If delegable - If effectively delegated - Occupier of building and structures - Delegation of
responsibilities to staff (whole-time Director and Managers) - Fire in cinema hall causing death of patrons - Liability for -
Duty of care for safety of invitees lies upon occupiers not only under the common law but even under the statutory
enactment - In present case, held, occupiers of Cinema i.e. appellants A-1 and A-2 had not done all that could and
ought to have been done by them to avert any tragedy in connection with the use of unsafe premises frequented by the
public for entertainment - There is nothing to suggest that the occupiers A-1 and A-2 had issued instructions to the staff
to have the deviations from and breaches of the safety norms removed and/or corrected which were the causa causans
of the death of 59 persons (see Shortnote G), or that those instructions were not complied with by the latter resulting in
the fire incident that claimed human lives - Staff employed by the occupiers had no role to play in these deviations from
the safety norms or their removal - Hence, contention that employers viz. A-1 and A-2, of such employees could not be
held vicariously liable under IPC for the failure of the latter to do what was enjoined upon them in terms of the duties
attached to their employment, rejected, (2014) 6 SCC 173-R
Criminal Law
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 79 Pt. I, 292, 293 and 304-A - Criminal negligence - Defence of acting in a manner justified by law under S. 79 Pt. I -
When available - Non-derogable/Non-delegable obligations/duties of care - Grant of no-objection certificates by
authorities, and renewal of cinematograph licence from time to time, held, does not relieve the occupiers/licensees of
their obligations which are implicit in the issue and renewal of the cinematograph licence - Extent of immunity available
under S. 5-A(1) proviso of Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Breach of obligations of an occupier are not justified on ground
that a licence was granted or renewed in favour of the occupiers/licensee despite their failure to discharge their legal
obligations - Fundamental obligation and duty of care of an occupier for the safety of the patrons exists even
independent of the statutory requirements - That apart, breach of the statutory provisions and compromising/neglecting
the safety requirements prescribed under the DCR, 1953, does not support a belief in appellant licensee A-1 and A-2's
good faith - Hence, plea of protection under S. 79 IPC, is not available - Further, under Cinematograph Act, 1952 no
protection is intended to be given to a licence-holder against prosecution for a rash or negligent act under S. 304-A IPC
unlike protection the statute itself grants under proviso to S. 5-A(1) of the 1952 Act against prosecution for obscenity in a
film for which a certificate has been issued by the Board of Censors,
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 79 Pt. II, 52 and 304-A - Exception under S. 79 Pt. II for act done by a person who by reason of a mistake of fact in
good faith believes himself to be justified by law in doing it - Ingredients of defence under, and applicability thereof - Test
for mistake of fact in good faith, on basis of which the above defence may be claimed - Plea of appellant occupiers of
Cinema, A-1 and A-2 that they were under a mistake of fact as they in good faith believed themselves to be justified in
law in exhibiting films in the Cinema, by reason of a licence issued under the Cinematograph Act - Tenability - Held,
mistake can be admitted as a defence provided: (1) that the state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified
the act done, and (2) the mistake must be reasonable, and (3) the mistake relates to fact and not to law - In present
case, appellant occupiers of the Cinema, are not in a position to identify the facts qua which they were under a mistake
nor is it clear as to how any such mistake of fact would have justified their act in law, leave alone satisfy the third
requirement of the mistake of fact being reasonable in nature to entitle appellant occupiers to the benefit of S. 79 Pt. II
IPC, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304-A and Ss. 336 to 338 - Criminal negligence causing death - Joint and several liability when many persons
grossly breached duties of care to victims concerned - Occupier's liability - Joint and several liability of all occupiers -
Conviction of gatekeeper of balcony of cinema theatre who had locked balcony door from outside, and then run away,
trapping patrons inside balcony who suffocated to death due to noxious fumes from a fire, for the offence punishable
under S. 304-A - Joint and several liability of occupiers of Cinema - Held, appellant occupiers if have indeed committed
gross negligence resulting in the death of a large number of people can be found to be equally rash or negligent and
convicted for the same offence as the gatekeeper, 
Entertainment, Amusement and Leisure
Cinemas, Videos and Cable Television
Rr. 10, 24, 37 and Sch. I - Notification under dated 30-9-1976 issued by State of Delhi, permitting Uphaar Cinema
addition of 100 more seats to its existing capacity - Withdrawal of - Whether additional seats permitted under the
Notification could legally continue in Cinema on basis of principles underlying S. 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 -
Rejecting such contention, held, S. 6, General Clauses Act does not have any application to repeal of any rule,
notification or order - Further held, power to withdraw a notification cannot remain meaningful and effectively exercised if
withdrawal is to leave the benefit under the withdrawn notification flowing in perpetuity - Also, such question could and
ought to have been argued before the High Court in the writ petition filed by the occupiers (appellant-accused A-1 and A-
2 herein) of Cinema hall, in Isherdas Sahni, AIR 1980 Del 147 but was not urged before the High Court in support of the
challenge to the demand for the removal of the seats - Hence it could not be raised now, 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 211, 215 and 464 - Framing of charges - Plea of prejudice - Plea that the accused A-1 and A-2 were prejudiced by
non-mention of days/period when the offence took place nor statutory provisions, rules and regulations allegedly violated
by A-1 and A-2 for accusing them of gross negligence under S. 304-A IPC - High Court held that charges were
reasonably clear and no prejudice was caused on that ground - View upheld by Supreme Court - An error, omission or
irregularity in the charge or misjoinder of charges shall not invalidate any sentence or order unless a failure of justice has
in fact been occasioned thereby,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 313 - Omission to put questions to the accused A-1 and A-2 herein, of circumstances appearing against them - Plea
as to - Rejected - Held, circumstances appearing against the accused persons have been elaborately put to them under

S. 313 CrPC and they have suffered no prejudice, 
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 - Gross negligence of duty directly resulting in death - Divisional Fire Officer (A-15), by
issuing no-objection certificates for Uphaar cinema without a proper inspection allowing unsafe premises to be used,
contributing to incident of fire which ultimately resulted in death of 59 persons - Evidence appraised by courts below
establishing charge of negligence against accused - Conviction upheld by Supreme Court - Held, as a senior and
experienced officer in the Fire Service Department, A-15 ought to have known the purpose of his inspection and the care
he was required to take in the interest of the safety of hundreds, if not thousands of cine-goers who throng to such public
places for entertainment - Inasmuch as he failed to do so, and issued a certificate which compromised the safety
requirements and endangered human lives resulting directly in the loss of a large number of them, he has been rightly
found guilty of criminal negligence, 
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 - Relative scope of S. 304-A and Ss. 336/337/338 - Causing death by rash or negligent act,
punishable under S. 304-A IPC vis--vis Endangering human life or personal safety causing hurt/grievous hurt by rash or
negligent act, punishable under Ss. 337/338 IPC - Differentiated - Applicability of principle of causa causans - Uphaar
Cinema fire resulting in 59 deaths, which fire started from DVB transformer installed on ground floor on account of the
improper repair carried out by appellant-accused employees (A-9 to A-11) of Delhi Vidyut Board (electricity supply
undertaking) - Courts below convicting appellant officials of DVB for the offence of causing death by rash and gross
negligence, punishable under S. 304-A and Ss. 337 & 338 IPC - Causal connection between the deaths and act of
shabby repair of the installation of the DVB transformer not directly established - However causal connection between
endangering the lives/personal safety of those who were killed and hurt/grievously hurt in balcony, established - Causa
causans for the death of 59 persons was their inability to quickly exit from the balcony area of cinema theatre - The fire
resulting from such poor repair was no more than causa sine qua non for the deaths and, therefore, did not constitute an
offence punishable under S. 304-A IPC (see also Shortnotes G and H) - Furthermore, negligence of the occupiers of the
Cinema intervened between the negligence of these two officials of DVB (A-9 and A-11) and deaths that occurred in the
incident - Hence, conviction of these two appellants, A-9 and A-11 under S. 304-A IPC set aside - However, as act of
shabby repair of the installation of the DVB transformer was causa causans of endangering the lives/personal safety of
those who were killed and hurt/grievously hurt in balcony, their conviction under Ss. 337 and 338 r/w S. 36 IPC
maintained - Further, acquittal of A-10, by High Court due to absence of any further evidence to prove the role played by
him, upheld, 
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A, 336, 337 and 338 - Criminal negligence - Spectrum of increasing culpability for, depending on whether rash
or negligent act of accused results in: (A) endangering human life or personal safety [S. 336 IPC]; (B) endangering
human life or personal safety which causes hurt/grievous hurt [Ss. 337/338 IPC]; and (C) causes death [S. 304-A IPC],

Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 - Uphaar Cinema fire - Managers of Uphaar Cinema and certain Administrative Officers of
MCD - Insufficiency of evidence - Absence of clearly discernible duty of care - Acquittal not interfered with - In view of
absence of proof of their involvement or breach of duty by Managers of Uphaar Cinema and absence of clearly
discernible duty of care and the magnitude of foreseeable damage by accused Administrative Officers of MCD who
issued no-objection certificates to Cinema premises, High Court acquitting Respondents 4, 7, 10 and 11 - View taken by
High Court on a fair appreciation of the evidence, held, does not call for any interference by Supreme Court, 
Penal Code, 1860
S. 304 or Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 - Charges framed under Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36, against occupiers A-1 and A-
2 of Uphaar Cinema - Revision petition for framing charges under S. 304 IPC asking for a remand on the fresh charge,
dismissed by High Court - Sustainability - Power of court in case of error, omission or irregularity in charge under S. 464
CrPC - Held, omission to frame a charge is by itself not enough for the court of appeal, confirmation or revision to direct
the framing of the charge - What is essential is that court of appeal in revision or confirmation must record a finding that
failure of justice has in fact been occasioned on account of non-framing of charge - Uphaar Victims' Association was
unable to satisfactorily demonstrate any such failure of justice - Incident occurred about 16 yrs ago - Also Victims'
Association failed to challenge the order framing charges under Ss. 304-A, 337, 338 and 36 IPC before the Supreme
Court on an earlier occasion - To frame a charge for a new offence and remand the matter back for the accused to face a
prolonged trial again at this stage does not appear to be a reasonable proposition - Moreover, the fact situation does not
suggest that accused Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2), occupiers of the Cinema or any one of them, had the knowledge that
their acts of omission or commission was likely to cause death of any human being - Hence, even on merits, charge
under S. 304 was not warranted,